The opinion
STEELMAN, Judge,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result of this case. The exceptions to official immunity have gradually expanded over the years. Epps v. Duke Univ., 122 N.C. App. 198, 204 , 468 S.E.2d 846, 851 (1996). This Court has explicitly recognized five: “A public officer ... ‘is shielded from liability unless he engaged in discretionary actions which were *286 allegedly: (1) corrupt; (2) malicious; (3) outside of and beyond the scope of his duties; (4) in bad faith; or (5) willful and deliberate.’ ” Smith v. Jackson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 168 N.C. App. 452, 468 , 608 S.E.2d 399, 411 (2005) (quoting Reid v. Roberts, 112 N.C. App. 222, 224 , 435 S.E.2d 116, 199 (1993)). I am not persuaded that the lack of probable cause to issue an arrest warrant, standing alone, is sufficient to negate immunity. Cf Schlossberg v. Goins, 141 N.C. App. 436, 446 , 540 S.E.2d 49, 56 (2000) (stating that a plaintiff cannot defeat public official immunity by alleging “reckless indifference”). I would affirm on this basis.